Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 810

Momo (game)
we have a new trend today about this game named momo and also it is a challenge, that made bunch of kids suicide (someone already died in this) and its spreading on WhatsApp. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.148.186.251 (talk • contribs) 06:27, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * So... how can we help you? ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus  (talk to me) 10:20, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * im letting editors know so they could create the article if they wanted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.148.186.251 (talk • contribs) 06:27, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You can go to WP:Requested articles. However there’s a huge backlog there. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus  (talk to me) 11:06, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, and welcome to the Teahouse! Basically, there is WP:Requested articles, but to be honest - it doesn't seem like editors very often check it and create the articles. If you want the article to be created, your best bet is probably to create the article as a draft and submit it for review via WP:Articles for creation. The easiest way to do this is using the Article Wizard. Do note that unless the article meets the notability guideline for video games, it probably won't be accepted. Generally, articles require significant coverage in multiple reliable sources in order to be considered notable, but there are exceptions. If you have any more questions about this, don't hesitate to ask!-- SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 18:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, all. I saw an article about Momo within the last day or so. It may have been on a mainstream news site, or I might have been diverted off into Outbrain-Taboola-promoted content (it's hard  to click on those links at the end of "real" articles sometimes).  What I saw suggests that it's not a video game but an activity like planking or the ice bucket challenge.  Except it involves grooming vulnerable people for self-harm.  If the story was not a beat-up or hoax, the subject could become significant.  But it might be a while before it warrants a dedicated article (or it might die out before it becomes that important).  See if you can find an article that covers the general topic (harmful viral social trends? I don't know where to start looking) where Momo would work as a subsection.  If the section expands enough then it can be later split off into a separate article.  Of course, the topic needs to be notable and covered by reliable sources, as others have said.  But it's a  easier to add to an existing article than to create one from scratch.  Pelagic (talk) 09:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Found the article, it is mainstream:  The author compares it to Blue Whale (game) and, more tenuously, to a Slenderman-related murder.  [Google gives me a few other hits from Australian media (incl. Mama Mia  and TV networks 9  and 10 ) but not overseas. Probably just filter bubble in action, as the Mama Mia piece links to UK's The Mirror and Buenos Aires Times.]

Use of "U.S." after city and state
This question is probably answered in Wikipedia's Manual of Style, but I can't find it. Should "U.S." be used after a city and state (for example, "Inglewood, California, U.S.") in an article's text or infobox or both? I see it used just enough to make me wonder. Eddie Blick (talk) 00:42, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse.
 * I don't think it is answered in the MOS, at least, I couldn't find it either. While MOS:INTRO says that we should give the location where appropriate and MOS:LINKSTYLE gives an example using Riverside, California, nothing seems to be explicitly said about leaving out the U.S.
 * Here's my rule of thumb: you should have at most two linkable items in a location. When you have a place that is considered very well known, such as New York City, there is no need to add the name of the state or country and no need to link. For all U.S. states, except possibly for Georgia, where there is some possibility of confusion with the country Georgia, no link is needed, but if the article for the city has the name of the state as part of its name, you link it as . I would also do this when a redirect exists that includes the state or country, so I would say Santiago, Chile with one link rather than Santiago, Chile with two.
 * My reasoning for leaving out the U.S. on such locations is that it is just clutter for the vast majority of readers. For the readers who are not as familiar with U.S. states, the additional information is always just a click away. Particularly in infoboxes, where you want to treat space as at a premium.
 * So, what do you choose to do? I would not suggest removing these extra U.S. insertions unless you were already making nearby changes in the article. My recommendation is not nearly strong enough to justify widespread removals. But I hope you are persuaded to not add to the clutter.  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 05:28, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * and The guide you're looking for is at WP:USPLACE, which says that "US" or "U.S." is never used after placenames, so please feel free to take it out wherever you find it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC)j
 * thanks for finding that. I searched high and low, but didn't get there. I don't see specific guidance in there about linking conventions, but I note that all of its examples just use a single link, as I advocated.  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 07:11, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and . I appreciate your help. I thought the inclusion of "U.S." was unnecessary, but I'm glad to see some documentation for that feeling. I also agree with the rule of thumb about unnecessary linking; that's pretty much my policy, too. Eddie Blick (talk) 12:44, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

My post was removed
My post is being removed by prolog admin in Finland under Mensa Members, for the reason not notable. The word notable also defined under the dictionary as a Businessman, also the word notable is subjective meaning that the removal by the admin in Finland (Prolog) is HIS opinion which is not a VALID reason to remove, Thank you for your reply, Robert Kayian page reference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mensans — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5c7:200:452:b847:dd59:5c40:f979 (talk • contribs) 10:14, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello anon. With regard to this edit, "notable" generally means that they already have a Wikipedia article of their own, or that they clearly meet our standards for notable biographies, but only that article hasn't been written yet. Unfortunately, you do not appear to have received sufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources to yet qualify for an article, and so you should not be included on the list.  G M G  talk  14:19, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreeing with G. In Wikipedia, notable, with few exceptions, means that there is an existing Wikipedia biography about the person on such a list. David notMD (talk) 14:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Jazz musician
I am looking for a secondary source for a very contemporary artist.The artist is a reggae jazz musician which has peaked in popularity yet a real secondary source should be an established critical magazine or book on contemporary jazz not just a newsfeed. As you can imagine finding this secondary source is really difficult especially since the artist is so brand new and just beginning to be noticed.How can I catch the moment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by James farr 2 (talk • contribs) 2018-08-04T16:42:32 (UTC)


 * Hello,, and welcome to the Teahouse. "Catching the moment" is very definitely not what Wikipedia does. If there aren't the sources yet, then there aren't the sources. Please see WP:TOOSOON. --ColinFine (talk) 16:26, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay to condense?
There's a page with a couple paragraphs that have been noted to have an 'ad-like' tone. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_Device_Interface) I'm considering condensing the wording in them so they are less so, but still keeping the same general information. Is this an appropriate action? I'm generally new to this and want to be sure I'm acting appropriately.

Thanks! Mmmancact (talk) 17:03, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's always a good idea to tone-down or even remove ad-like verbage. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

New + Confused
Hi! Grateful for some help. I just want a simple addition made to this semi-protected page. Not getting a response when I submit the request. What am I doing wrong (or could you post it for me)? Not sure what/how to get 'consensus' (even though I've read about consensus, I don't understand what I'm supposed to do.

Want to add the below 12-Step Group and hyperlink to this Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_twelve-step_groups

CAFAA - Caffeine Addicts Anonymous Caffeine Addicts Anonymous

Thank you very much for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MsSB1 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi The list contains only links to Wikipedia articles about relevant organizations. There is no article about Caffeine Addicts Anonymous here so there is nothing to add to List of twelve-step groups. If you are interested you can write an article about CAFAA provided that it will at the very least comply with Wikipedia's notability standard for organizations. See the Your first article guide. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:07, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . Edit requests, like everything else on Wikipedia, are dealt with by volunteers, and so you have to be a little patient and be prepared to wait a while for a response when making one. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:41, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

When is it OK for a Wikipedia article to disparage Wikipedia? Something doesn't feel right about this...
I have been editing the social media article to clean up sources, and something doesn't feel right about one of the paragraphs. The paragraph in question is in the section about criticisms of social media.

In an abbreviated format, the paragraph reads like this:


 * User-generated content is sometimes viewed with skepticism; readers do not trust it as a reliable source of information. ... Reasons for distrusting collaborative systems with user-generated content, such as Wikipedia, include a lack of information regarding accuracy of contents, motives and expertise of editors, stability of content, coverage of topics and the absence of sources.

The full paragraph is the second one under this section here. The paragraph has two citations.

On the one hand, I think WP's policies state that if a criticism of Wikipedia is generally accepted and is well-sourced, it should be included in the appropriate article. Not having criticism of Wikipedia on Wikipedia would be a form of censorship, right?

On the other hand, here are the red flags I am seeing:
 * The sources are 10-13 years old. Is that too old for being a reference to prevailing public opinion?
 * The source called "Can you ever trust a wiki?" by Aniket Kittur et al. seems questionable.
 * It seems non-neutral to me, but I may be in the wrong. The authors say that WP's mutability "leads many to distrust it" and it cites a nameless Wikipedian as saying "Wikipedia, just by its nature, is impossible to trust completely. I don't think this can necessarily be changed." Why is a nameless user cited in a scholarly article?
 * It is a primary source; these authors conducted the research themselves and then drew conclusions about it. This alone should disqualify it, right?
 * The objective of the article was to make (passive?) recommendations to Wikipedia for enhancements.
 * The other source called "Wikipedia Risks", by Peter Denning et al., is cited by the first source. Does this give it credibility? But, it too seems questionable for the following reasons.
 * The point of the article is that "relying on Wikipedia presents numerous risks", which they believe relate to accuracy, motives, uncertain expertise, volatility, coverage, and sources. It concludes, "The Wikipedia is an interesting social experiment in knowledge compilation and codification. However, it cannot attain the status of a true encyclopedia without more formal content-inclusion and expert review procedures." What is a "true" encyclopedia? This seems value-laden and judgmental, and therefore non-neutral.
 * These authors cite nothing. It cannot be anything other than an opinion piece, right?
 * Almost all of the sources in these two articles are published in ACM Press. Isn't it undue weight to cite content from only one publisher? Is ACM Press the most highly regarded source for this information?
 * Last but not least, why is a discussion of Wikipedia in the social media article?

What is the best course of action in this case? Is it appropriate to delete the paragraph because it is based on questionable sources and because it is better to have nothing at all than have bad sources? Or, do we keep or edit the paragraph because maybe the material is true and deserves a citation-needed flag?

Thank you for helping out a new editor--Romhilde (talk) 05:09, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse.
 * Wikipedia is quite explicit that it is not itself to be considered a reliable source. There is a List of hoaxes on Wikipedia that shows just how vulnerable Wikipedia is. Our goal, therefore, is not to get readers to trust what they read on Wikipedia, but to realize that what appears on Wikipedia is only as reliable as the sources we cite.
 * Also, whether we like it or not, Wikipedia is viewed as a sort of social media by many people, our protestations of NOTSOCIAL notwithstanding.
 * After that preamble, here's my response.
 * Criticism of Wikipedia is definitely allowed
 * As with everything else on Wikipedia, criticism of Wikipedia should be properly sourced
 * Updating a section with newer references is always a good idea, even if it means the overall tone of the section must be changed to follow the more comprehensive set of sources
 * As ACM is a relatively diverse organization, having references predominantly to ACM press publications is not necessarily a red flag. More diverse sources would be good, but if we are to prefer scholarly articles to journalistic coverage and prefer journalistic coverage to random blog writings, ACM and IEEE Computer Society are the top dogs on this topic.
 * Age of sources is seldom a good reason to delete a section. If you think the state of things has changed materially from what the old sources say, you would need newer sources to say it.
 * As for quoting anonymous sources, we should not do it, but some publications allow it and we, if we consider the publication generally reliable, are allowed to reference it.
 * So, I suggest raising your concerns on the talk page of the article in question where you and other interested editors can hammer out a consensus on what should be deleted and what should be updated.  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 05:52, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response, . Your points made are very helpful, and I had not seen or read NOTSOCIAL before, so I appreciate the link to that. Romhilde (talk) 16:31, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Regarding this: It is a primary source; these authors conducted the research themselves and then drew conclusions about it. This alone should disqualify it, right? Primary sources published in independent scholarly sources, such as peer reviewed conference proceedings, are allowed in most Wikipedia articles, as long as they are cited properly and not interpreted - more about that here. They are disqualified in articles about biomedical subjects though, per this guideline. --bonadea contributions talk 10:04, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you as well, . It makes sense that a field like biomedical would have different, more stringent standards. Romhilde (talk) 16:31, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I am wondering about the "10-13 year old sources" however. There are many topics that are, for the most part, done changing, i.e.: articles about composers, oil paintings, topics concerning historical subjects like wars and battles that took place ages ago, and geographical locations. Many of these topics don't require updated sources as there are few current changes that concern them so that would skew the statistics if the total age of WP's sources lists a percentage of sources as being old sources. Just a thought. Coryphantha   Talk  03:13, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

do you know how to make an episode template, if a show has multiple seasons?
Yesterday, I made a few pages/ articles that were pre WP:SPLIT but the info is still on List of My Hero Academia episodes, then I split it apart by season at here, here, and here. But since there is 3 seasons of this show, I think there has to be an episode template? As advised from someone at my talk page. But for the article/ page title, the "year" might sound irrelevant, by WP:COMMONNAME, maybe? And I mention this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga too. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 13:51, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no valid reason to split seasons like List of My Hero Academia episodes into separate pages, especially when there is strong continuity between the seasons, unless there is to be a substantial increase in content. I recommend against the split. Ozflashman (talk) 03:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh? Well, that's a lot if its to undo that. It was if the info kept adding, the list looks like I'm scrolling down and down. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 04:43, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Then next, I was going to add a dvd/ blue ray for the home release; on seasons 1, 2, and maybe 3. When the available info comes up. And if I add that, on the main page/ article it would be already bigger. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 13:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

What editor police decided this *wasn't* verifiable?
The article on San Francisco History has NOTHING on the Presidio. The Presidio was a post in the Spanish-American War and the Philippine American War. It was home to Buffalo Soldiers.

I edited the article and the source cited was a government website.

This is verifiable.

Whomever is the Editorial Police around here perhaps should brush up on their San Francisco history. It's a gross oversight to have nothing on the Presido and its involvement as a Post during war.

The post referenced the National Park Service information on the Presidio.

As someone who volunteered an hour today to update this, I don't appreciate it being deleted.

Here's the link: https://www.nps.gov/prsf/learn/historyculture/spanish-american-war-a-splendid-little-war.htm

Writercal (talk) 23:04, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse.
 * You and another editor have a content dispute. This is very common on Wikipedia. Your work is not lost, it is not entirely deleted, it is retained in the history of the article.
 * For content disputes, the first step is to open a discussion on the talk page of the article in question. The Teahouse will not help solve content disputes.  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 23:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. One important sidenote though: you should not simply copypaste content from external sources into Wikipedia. If the content is in the Public Domain, you might re-use such content, but you must still properly attribute the original source. Please see WP:FREECOPYING for more information. If the source content is not in the Public Domain, you should never copypaste it into Wikipedia (aside from short quotations in relevant context), but should re-phrase the information in your own words. I'll revert your second edit (the given date is disputed among different sources in the article, and would need a more detailed explanation and possibly additional sources). Please make sure to read the linked guideline about this aspect. Thank you for your consideration. GermanJoe (talk) 23:34, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


 * At History of San Francisco, clicking on View history at top, then Prev next to your edit will show your addition. Clicking on the date next to your edit will show a past version of the article, with your edit. David notMD (talk) 01:20, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * It has to be understood that the communication skills of editors throughout WP differ and maybe on the route to garner the most some editors are in retrospect in haste when it comes to content they do not accept either for care for on face or source (or lack thereof) very scant about explanation or advice when they revert. There are some editors that all they do is revert; some not even providing an edit summary. This counts for them a an edit as would be if you wrote an entire article. Some do not realize just how by this hasty interaction are perceived or the impact it has on how people perceive WP. There may even be a situation where they do not care and let their level of influence prevail. If someone reverts you and you do not understand decide what page best would assist you in getting a response as to why was the action taken. If you get back a response in WP short hand then you know that it is all rout for them instead of pointing out some particular facts as to why. They may feign lack of time, etc but again the WP community is not from a cookie cutter. So in a way, I understand how taking the personal affront to an action is exhibited but it probably has nothing personal against you--just the other person's style or inability to let the other person understand just what they have done by reverting.2605:E000:9149:A600:6891:3BC3:1FEC:41B4 (talk) 17:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

How do I revert vandalism efficiently?
Hey guys, I just joined hoping to fight vandalism on my spare time but I haven’t seen any vandalism in my favorite areas (I am an art professor). Can someone direct me towards how to find and fix vandalism? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by FeArtProf (talk • contribs) 22:53, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, welcome to the Teahouse, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you created your account today and the above edit is your first edit. I would recommend having some more edits under your belt before your begin the daunting talk of reverting vandalism, as there are many steps to learn. I suggest you read through the links that were left on your talk page in your welcome section to become more familiar with editing. After that you could check out the Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy and check to see if there are any available trainers who can mentor you. At this writing there are no slots open, but that may change. Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages and at the Teahouse with four tildes: ~ . Coryphantha   Talk  03:27, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi (did I do that right?). I checked out recent change and I noticed that another editor reverting vandalism, . It seems like  has a natural talent for patrolling recent changes and other things - the first thing they did was make a blank user page and talk page and didn’t edit for several months. Then in one day they started reverting vandalism and even working on deleting pages. Looks like this is the person to go to for advice. FeArtProf (talk) 03:55, 5 August 2018 (UTC) did that work?
 * Hi, if you'd like to help counter vandalism on Wikipedia, take some time to read through the introduction to cleaning up vandalism and Wikipedia's vandalism policy. You can start by cleaning up vandalism manually, and then move on to other tools later. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! —  Newslinger  talk   14:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I do think you need some more experience getting to know how to edit Wikipedia before embarking on reverting vandalism. A lot goes into understanding how WP works first before you can start that journey. You could get yourself blocked if you go about it the wrong way. Please take some time to read through some of the articles in your welcome packet that I left on your talk page and get some experience editing first. Again, your one and only edit was at the Teahouse and already you wanted to revert vandalism, I think you're rushing things. If you're really serious, find a mentor and have someone adopt you to teach you about WP editing. Take the WP:Adventure course, that's a great place to start. Let's take this step by step, no need to rush things. Best wishes. Coryphantha   Talk  16:21, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It is always a great thing when someone with your background and enthusiasm and energy wants to help Wikipedia become even better! I left a longer message on your talk page. Best Regards, Barbara ✐ ✉  18:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

How does WP handle senior WP constibutors that threaten other editors that use an IP address as their user identification?
WP endorses the use of an IP address as a form of identification on WP. I have basically been threatened by another editor that appears to be a senior editor about my use of an IP address: "I have also advised you three times now to register." What do i get to do to address this matter formally? Just how is it that my editing skills are to improve because I register a user name instead of using what WP endorsres--anIP address? I think that this editor has over stepped the bounds of community spirit with this alluded threat?2605:E000:9149:A600:34D8:EC05:8EC2:B095 (talk) 10:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Pinging . Please don't excessively add or clarification tags as it is regarded as disruptive editing. ~  Abelmoschus Esculentus  (talk to me) 12:10, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * And to both of you be WP:CIVIL David notMD (talk) 14:47, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Anonymous IP, doesn't Wikipedia endorse creating an account? CoolSkittle (talk) 17:13, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Endorse not same as require. David notMD (talk) 17:30, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * In no way was a threat made or intended. The ANON-IP made several edits that came up on my watch list, those edits were evaluated by me and reverted. Another User also reverted one of the questionable edits by the IP.

With regards to the “threat” specifically. The correct context (which has been left out by the complainant) can be found on my talk page. I was responding to the IP’s assumed question (or rant, but I assumed it was a question about me suggesting the IP NOT register an account). As far as I am aware, and for atleast the past 11 years I’ve been on here, WP endorses people creating an account.

Every User here will agree with me when I say that it’s easier to use WP with an account, having the tools at our disposal. Also some articles can only be edited by confirmed users. The IP user has already identified as bring a 17 year ‘veteran’ editor of WP. Wether the IP chooses to create an account is neither here or there for me.

From the start the IP user was on the offensive, making it difficult, but I certainly kept it civil, even after the IP user attempted to bait me. The welcome message for disruptive editing was used first, then after more disruptive edits were made, I used the level 3 warning for disruptive editing (see IP Users talk page). Both templates include an element suggesting the IP User creates an account. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 21:21, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


 * So far as I know, there is just one editor out there who both chooses to edit without registering an account and gets upset whenever someone suggests that editing with an account might have some benefits, whether it's a direct suggestion or indirectly via some warning script. For the record, they object to being addressed "anonymous user" or "IP user". And it's true that edits by users editing without an account or while logged out often come under a little extra scrutiny, so their claim of being discriminated against is partially valid. All I can suggest is that we ignore these intemperate rants when we see them, just as the supposedly veteran editor should by now be able to ignore the small indignities, if we can call them that, that the community imposes. No editor in good faith reverts edits merely because they were made by an IP address editor. Suggesting that as a motivation, as opposed to recognizing a difference in opinion about the appropriateness of particular edit, is also a violation of AGF.  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 23:07, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Nford24? No, not every participant here agrees with you. Remember if you can, I am part of this discussion and to say that everyone does agree with your statement says that you are speaking for me and you are not. Not everyone participating in WP wants to do so with the intensity that do you. I do not ask you to participate using your IP address therefore why should you take it upon yourself on behalf of WP to then tell me to do so in regards to the IP issue? You and no one else with WP are here to tell spmeone just how is it that as long as they function in regards to identification just what is it that they can use in accordance with the WP endorsement. Those of you (see, i did not say everyone with WP, or even here) that seem to have some issue with IP identification users need to understand that when you ask someone that is not required of WP even if it is merely on a "naive" whim to do so is being rude. Now the way that you have been raised it may not seem rude but you have to remember that you are not the center of the universe. There are standards that people have that you just do not cross. I do not know your weltanschauung but maybe you need to learn about that of others. What concerns me about the "all" statement is that by saying so it automatically shuts down the discussion because you are making a judgment for the whole group; not just yourself--THE WHOLE GROUP. That is not the point of discussion. That is not the point of the tea house. You taut yourself as a senior participant at WP yet you seem to have underlying tentacles that counter WP tenets.Again, i have to remind the situation that my statements are not an act of hostility but that is what i see happen time and again in discussions on the board when it seems that the influences at WP cannot handle reflection. "disruptive" seems to be a very universal and wonderfully inclusive way to shut down discussion. If your statements are so pristine concerning WP tenets then just when was it necessary to register a user name to take part in the tea house? I am not making this up. Okay, I understand your explanation as yet not given that you did not intend this point--but do you realise the intent of what was expressed? If that is not possible then the discussion shut down a long time ago, I am a disruptive contributor and someone takes the situation to the boards. It does not take much review of the boards or the archives to show this out. The use of the term disruptive has already been disclosed and many of you already know this because it really is very common considering the "community" aspect of WP. It can almost be said (well, if it is done here then it is said) that the mere mention of it is of and unto itself uneasy for the WP environment. And despite the use of "registered" user names and what people post to the non-article talk pages the internet is a wonderful environment for aninimity.

When did I say i was a 17 year veteran? You have to understand that what you call something just may be an unfortunate summation. WP today is not what WP was when it foirst started. My "participation" with WP is not the same today as it was years ago. I would find it unfortunate to characterise what was "participation" years ago with an occasional read and an occasional edit the same as what I may do on occasion now? You have to pay attention to the details and not what are prejudices. That statement to some is being disruptive. I do not have aspirations of being an administrator. OH! he doesn't have aspirations ....... This is how i characterise some things. I do not go to the same type of "cocktail" parties as you might. SThis statement to some will cause them to think that some this person is not WP material. I have already said that i do not have the same administrative aspirations as so many others.I am not on a witch hunt.2605:E000:9149:A600:7D56:CC3:EA51:5FBF (talk) 00:48, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello IP users and, welcome to the Teahouse. It seems that there was a welcome template left on 's page which that user took exception to. Just so that you're fully aware, the template was not written by NFord24 and is a welcome template used to both welcome and notify a user that their edit has been reverted and was left on the talk page as a matter of courtesy. No editor has threatened you in any way. I would suggest that you read WP:Civil and WP:AGF however. We're here to work together and build an encyclopedia. Best wishes.  Coryphantha   Talk  03:04, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I hate to point it out but when another editor writes a message that in effect could be interpreted as a threat because you did not follow their advice then that is a threat. This is from a person that wants to characterise themselves at not having any fault in the situation when it can be shown by their actions that at best they misdirected another editor about just how can the tea house be used? You want to characterise a situation with absolutes when they have contributed to not following WP tenets? What it amounts to is bullying. And the except was to, despite WP endorsement, registering a user name which is the problem with that template. But if you advocate the use of registered user names and despise the use of IP addresses as WP participation identifiers then I do not expect for you to understand the impact of someone with the authority to send out "welcomes" that also in the same breath talks about registered user names. You do understand the cookie cutter rule? Not everyone is the same. Not everyone at WP is as invested in what WP has in options as what you might. The problem presents that if the other party is not of the same interest then they just may not be the right sort for WP. I am not talking about those IP users that pop on the site and create obvious vandalism to an article. But if you apply this attitude to those IP user s that have a bit more seriousness to their participation that is not the problem of that user. And to point this out is not an action of hostility although this "disruptive" tone seems to be a panacea so readily jolted at what seems to be an attempt to do away with the participant that is serious yet perceived offensive, maybe solely because they use an IP address user name that is unregistered. These attitudes come out on the boards where they seem to be populated by a preponderance of senior WP participants because they have the same skills set. Well, when your selection is the same then you have just set up your system to have the potential for the same mind set. The anonymity of the internet can just add to it. Someone with authority that has given what is wrong information is not an innocent. Let me point out a potential characterisation of your writing. When you address a registered user name do you qualify that communication with "registered user name ......"? Because it is in all likelihood, especially here in this discussion, to qualify, to whom you are addressing by saying, "Hello IP users and " because they are not likely to be confused with others? I use my IP as my identifier not as a means of telling people my IP address. And again, let me point out that this is not an act of hostility but merely pointing out what is happening with some in what may not be so a subconscious way of red flagging others. When I address registered name users I do not say, "Hello registered name user 'Disruptive Editor'." I just say, "Hello, Disruptive Editor" then go on with my message.2605:E000:9149:A600:6891:3BC3:1FEC:41B4 (talk) 18:35, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

posidonia is the capital of atlantis
posidonia capital of atlantis they worshiped many eldar gods and goddess the upper class wore gold and blue lower class wore white and bronze and soldiers wore gold and aqua with sliver sea shells and the golden dolphin were their holy symbols in the empire. each summer they would celebrate neptunailia the festavial of water and its blessings and if you where rich you could sacrfice an baby bull and if you were poor you wold sacifice watermelons or wine depending on what you could affored only on this day. the eldar gods and goddesses would previde for the people. outher holidays in clueded the fest of oceananus and the night oF the 6 sea shells when the 3 sisters children of posidon's eldarest sister cast 3 sea shells into the sea and created atlantis, its people and the 1st of 2 dolpins, the starfish, fish, clams and turtels & octapus. over the years there stories have been deluted by other races and there stories where given to the kemetic people's then given to a greek traveler that made it famous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AtlanteanPaganism2018 (talk • contribs)


 * I’m not seeing a question in there anywhere. Did you need help with something? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:54, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Help with userpage
Hello! I am desperate for help with my user page. Why is the text to the side? Is it the userboxes? Much Thanks, Huff slush7264 20:10, 5 August 2018 (UTC) Huff slush7264
 * Hi and welcome to the teahouse! A great start to a design on your user page! I see a couple of potential causes for the formatting errors you're seeing. Firstly, a wikitable is being created at the top, but isn't closed. (To close templates like that, you want to use the a closing |} ). Additionally, the use of the align: center template conflicts with some of the style parameters set in the <div code just before it. To fix it, I recommend removing the wikitable and center templates, and instead placing your userboxes in a formatted box in the middle of your div area with some margin padding. Additionally, we can change the div's "text-align" parameter to 'center' to achieve the same thing as the previous center template. I've gone ahead and put together what this would look like on a subpage to my userpage, here. Feel free to copy and paste the source code! Let me know if I can help more,  HunterM267  talk 20:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello! What's the book infobox code?
I'm planning to add an article about Dan Waldschmidt's book. What's the book infobox code? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshuaReen (talk • contribs)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . Please see Template:Infobox book for full documentation. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  20:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I need assistance concerning a REDIRECT
Iyalode is presently being treated as a redirect, which I consider not appropriate due to the context of its host article. I plan to write an article this month as part of a Wikipedia contest. The issue here is if I just replace the redirect text with the article, it wouldn't be listed as one of my created articles. I will really love this article to be counted as one of my created articles, and considering that the redirect was not appropriate in the first place, I don't think it is out of place. I have an overview of the topic in my sandbox, which I intend to improve upon once the space is empty for a copy/paste. How can I still be the creator of the article? HandsomeBoy (talk) 00:06, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Any article created under the same title will show the original editor as the creator. It really does not matter who is listed as having first created the title. It will be obvious from the edit history who contributed content to the article. By the way, Wikipedia is probably not the right place for you if you are interested in getting credit for your contributions.. I believe there is an essay on this subject, but I can't find it, if anyone else knows the link... Meters (talk) 06:03, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse.
 * I'm afraid I don't see, from comparison with your sandbox draft, why you think the redirect target is not appropriate. But that's a matter that can be worked out later if anyone is concerned about your replacment....
 * Undue concern about whether you will be credited with the creation, rather than just the improvement, of an article is unlikely to seen favorably by your fellow editors.
 * When you are ready to MOVE your sandbox draft into the Iyalode title, you may request that an administrator remove the current redirect to make the move possible. To copy-paste the sandbox content would lose all of the editing history and, if other editors have contributed to your sandbox, would require a histmerge by an admin. They would much rather delete the redirect in advance of your move.
 * Please ask for a review of your article before you move it, even if you don't want to use the articles for creation process. If you are participating in a contest, I expect the people running the contest to be offering competent content reviews. Your current draft has some distance to cover before it would be considered ready.  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 06:13, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's technically possible to do what yHandsomeBoy wants, but I doubt any admin is going to think it is worth bothering to delete a viable redirect just because there is a more general topic and someone wants to get his name on the first edit.. Meters (talk) 06:16, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know why I didn't get a notification on these replies. Thanks for your reply, but I think some of your interpretation of my comment does not represent my reasoning. There is a reason Barnstars exists, and for the record I really love being appreciated by wikipedians. Aside from the personal joy I get from bridging content gap for my country, that is the next greatest motivation for me here. I don't think that is a sign of WP:NOTHERE as you suggested. I have contributed significantly to numerous articles that I didn't create, and I do not have any history of COI in any of my created articles. There is a Wikipedia page that talks about proper attribution of content to their creators, which was what I intended this post to be about.


 * The reason I felt the redirect was not appropriate was because the subject, which is about a person was redirecting to a town, whose only link to the subject is that it is a Yoruba town, a not-so-important one at that, lacking the historical richness of Iyalodes in other towns. If this was a redirect to Egba, Lagos, Ibadan, etc it would have been better suited. The redirect seem to me like making "King" link redirect to one not-so-important village in Somalia (no disrespect to the country). But if there is nothing I can do to change that, I am definitely 100% fine with it, I just said I should get an opinion here first. It does not mean It would not change my contribution to the article.


 * I agree with you that the sandbox needs work, as I stated in my inital post, it is not a finished job. I even made some improvements this morning. But I was led by completely by the sources I could find. And I didn't want to generalize viewpoints that could be contradicted. For a moment i thought I was writing an academic project. Anyone is free to make the article better, because it is going to mainspace very soon. I created a similar article last month, Iyaloja, which had better tone and structure, which was due to the manner of sources I could get.


 * The reason why I stated "copy/paste" is because the way I use my sandbox, there are so many articles in its history. HandsomeBoy (talk) 12:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't say anything at all about WP:NOTHERE. Neither did user:jmcgnh. Both of us simply pointed out that trying to get credit for your contributions is not what Wikipedia is about. As I said, the edit history of the article will clearly show who contributed the content, regardless of who first created the article. And this has nothing to do with Barnstars.
 * As for your suggestion that the current redirect is inappropriate, both jmcgnh and I seem to agree that it is a valid redirect. It may not be the best target for it, but it is not an inappropriate target. And it is not redirecting to a town as you claim. It is redirecting to a an article about traditional chiefs in Ota, and more specifically, to the section of the article discussing the Iyalode position.in Ota. That's a reasonable redirect. Meters (talk) 02:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * user:Meters, maybe we both misunderstood some aspects of our points. Thanks for the reply anyways, at least, one thing I've learnt is that the redirect will not be deleted. Cheers. HandsomeBoy (talk) 20:44, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Do you think I did my best for creating a Wiki for Son Chae-young?
I think i need to question this to someone can help me for this. I know im new but i did try my best to create Article for my Bias in South Korean Girl Group name Twice ♥♥ I love them so much because of their cute mv and songs btw if i did my best can you help me more so i can create some article for others :) thank you Strangenature (talk) 19:40, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

PS: my Article or Wiki about Chaeyoung has not been public yet because wiki need to accept it before i can share it :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strangenature (talk • contribs)
 * The article's formatting is good, but it does not cite enough reliable sources to prove her notability. Every statement about a living person needs to cite a reliable source -- see WP:BLP for more info.
 * Some information is generally discouraged even if there are sources -- signatures of living persons are discouraged because of concerns over privacy and relevancy.
 * I'm also seeing some possible issues with neutral phrasing. Phrases like "she also excels at" are not neutral.  "she is known for" would be better -- assuming the information is sourced.
 * My usual advice if you're going to write an article about anyone or anything:
 * 1) Choose a topic whose notability is attested by discussions of it in several reliable independent sources.
 * 2) Gather as many professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources you can find.
 * 3) Focus on just the ones that are not dependent upon or affiliated with the subject, but still specifically about the subject and providing in-depth coverage (not passing mentions). If you do not have at least three such sources, the subject is not yet notable and trying to write an article at this point will only fail.
 * 4) Summarize those sources from step 2, adding citations at the end of them. You'll want to do this in a program with little/no formatting, like Microsoft Notepad or Notepad++, and not in something like Microsoft Word or LibreOffice Writer.
 * 5) Combine overlapping summaries (without arriving at new statements that no individual source supports) where possible, repeating citations as needed.
 * 6) Paraphrase the whole thing just to be extra sure you've avoided any copyright violations or plagiarism.
 * 7) Use the Article wizard to post this draft and wait for approval.
 * 8) Expand the article using sources you put aside in step 2 (but make sure they don't make up more than half the sources for the article, and make sure that affiliated sources don't make up more than half of that).
 * Doing something besides those steps typically results in the article not being approved, or even in its deletion. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

If ever wiki will accept it i will sure to make it better and gather more infos about her so i can make more article :)

PS:How many working days before they will accept it? or maybe not :( but still im trying to publish article so yeah its okay if ever they dont accept it Strangenature (talk) 20:17, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Your draft Draft:Son Chae-young has not been submitted, if you do submit, it will be declined as it only has one source, Twitter which is unreliable. Theroadislong (talk) 20:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * i have many source like i did go to twice main page and main website thats why I include all and i did watch their performance in Sixteen Reality Show in korea before they debut so yea I know some of info like JYP Praises Her because of her ability to sing, dance, rap, drawing and more Strangenature (talk) 20:27, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding If ever wiki will accept it i will sure to make it better -- that's backwards. You need to add sources for us to accept it.  We delete articles about living people if they do not have sources.
 * You need independent sources, too. That is, sources that are not affiliated with Son Chae-Young or Twice.  You need something like newspaper or magazine articles about them.  You have to do more  than just say you have sources, you need to cite the sources in the draft.  Ian.thomson (talk) 20:45, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

BTW i added more sources so you can check it i did my best to find more about her and soon i'll add more if ever there is thank you for helping me for this I appreciate it :) Strangenature (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The wording is VERY promotional (not allowed), some the proposed refs are about the band (Twice) not her. Your mention that you will add more sources (citations) if more are created is telling, as it suggests now is too soon for an article about her. One of the band's other members Chou Tzu-yu has a Wikipedia article about her, so you may want to look at that for a model of the article you want to create.  David notMD (talk) 01:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Report Annoying User
I want report an annoying user (58.108.17.20). This user make some non sense comment on my user talk page like said me b*st*rd etc. Where i can report this annoying user? Thanks before and sorry for my bad English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelelijahtanuwijaya (talk • contribs) 23:39, August 5, 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:AIV but not after just one incident. I have warned the IP. If he keeps it up eventually he will be blocked. Meters (talk) 23:56, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've added your talk page to my watch list so I'll catch any more of this. If you wan tot leave warnings yourself you can find them at Template messages/User talk namespace Meters (talk) 23:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for your help bro :) Michaelelijahtanuwijaya 01:30, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

"Single purpose account" - what do I do?
I have been accused of being a single purpose account because I have been trying to add information to Sarah Jeong, which has been an extremely contentious page. I think it's ridiculous that someone has accused me of this, but now I am afraid that my account is going to get banned. If you look at my edit history, of course I have made many many edits to the talk page because it is a contentious issue and people are discussing what the content should look like; many of the comments are me supporting or opposing other suggestions to the page, and the number of those can rack up quite quickly apparently. I have worked much harder on other articles such as Utilis Coquinario, Meristem, Trophic state index, and Hănești. Particularly I have spent hours and hours working on Utilis Coquinario, which I created from scratch!

Am I supposed to stop working on Sarah Jeong now because someone has accused me of this? Is there a rule about having more than "1/3" of my edits coming from one page as one user referenced on the admin noticeboard? Why would someone think I have a "single purpose account", and how can I avoid that? Ikjbagl (talk) 22:09, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to the Teahouse.
 * The "single purpose account" is an observation about behavior, which sometimes calls for added scrutiny because it is also a common co-attribute of paid or COI editors. All by itself, it is not a reason why your account would be blocked. Blocking would only occur if the edits that you make add up to a disruptive behavior.
 * Because the Sarah Jeong page is under discretionary sanctions, you need to be very careful about how you interact with other editors contributions there - but you are by no means unable to continue to contribute.  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 23:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Just an FYI, this issue is currently under discussion at ANI. John from Idegon (talk) 01:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * ah, now I see it. I looked to Ikjbagl's talk page to see which admin noticeboard they had been mentioned on. Seeing none, I stopped looking, thinking that the Jeong talk page was where I should look. But Ikjbagl started the ANI thread, so that's why I found no notice on their talk page.
 * So my advice above was somewhat under-informed. The SPA was a misplaced accusation and POV editing is sometimes in the eye of the beholder. Taking the issue to ANI looks like it was a mistake, Ikjbagl is learning some lessons.  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 02:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Error on search results page
If you search for the Dayton Art Institute, the Wikipedia search engine returns this single sentence description: “Art museum in Columbus, Ohio”. That is incorrect. It should read “Art museum in Dayton, Ohio.” How can this be corrected? I do not see any editing options listed on the search returns page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabrhs (talk • contribs) 16:25, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, and welcome to the Teahouse! You're looking at the article's short description, which can be edited at Wikidata. Fortunately, your Wikipedia account works with Wikidata, so you don't have to sign up again. To correct this error, just go to the article's Wikidata entry and make the change. (Unfortunately, Wikidata doesn't have an app yet, so you'll need to do this in a web browser.) Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! —  Newslinger  talk   17:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! I was able to correct the description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabrhs (talk • contribs) 17:27, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * You're welcome! In the future, be sure to sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes ( ~ ) so others can see that the messages are from you. If you have any other questions, please don't hesitate to ask. —  Newslinger  talk   17:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Tabrhs, didn't the search engine return our actual article about the museum? It's here: Dayton Art Institute. Bishonen &#124; talk 20:43, 5 August 2018 (UTC).

Yes, the article itself is fine. The error was only present in the short description. Using Newslinger’s tip, I was able to correct that. Everything is working well now. Tabrhs (talk) 22:04, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Although this is no excuse for not correcting data at Wikidata, a recent initiative to help localize short descriptions used on Wikipedia is through the addition of within an article, typically at the very top above everything else. It takes a single unnamed parameter (though 1 can also work), which is the short description. Usually, the short description used at the Wikidata entry can be copied and used within the template, or the new short description here can be added to the Wikidata one there, but the point of localizing it is to bring it within the scope of Wikipedia for internal monitoring and control. For example, this error you noticed might have been caught quicker if it was in a short description template here, since there are many more editors here who might notice.If you are interested in contributing to the initiative, feel free to add s to the top of pages, as well. Regardless, thanks for your help catching these errors. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 02:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

New to Wikipedia
Hello I’m new to Wikipedia. I am interested in psychology, sociology and other social sciences plus I’m quite and accomplished in coding (CSS and JavaScript) any advice on what to edit. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wingedspy (talk • contribs) 03:18, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, and welcome to the Teahouse! If you're interested in writing about web development, two articles that need work are the Cross-browser article, which needs to be rewritten to cover cross-browser development and testing, and the Comparison of browser engines (typography support) page, which is woefully out of date. WikiProject Computer Science has more, and other editors also have many other articles to suggest.
 * In the future, be sure to sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes ( ~ ) to let people know that your message is from you. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! —  Newslinger  talk   04:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Donald Yamamoto
Hi, I have noticed a need for improvements in this article, but have no desire to become an editor at this point. Where, if anywhere, can I post a comment about this to make editors aware of it?

Yrs,

Judith Nærland
 * Hello Judith and welcome to the Teahouse.
 * You have already posted a message to Talk:Donald Yamamoto, so you've done what's necessary.  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 07:04, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Haha, yes I felt a bit silly for posting here after I figured that out on my own. Thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.212.163.34 (talk) 14:43, 6 August 2018‎ (UTC)